[The first seven Written Answers should have been printed in the Official Report of Wednesday 24th July.]Road Traffic Penalties

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they intend to publish their response to the consultation paper on road traffic penalties.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Government's response to the consultation paper on the review of road traffic penalties was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Correctional Services

Lord Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be the form of the independent review of the correctional services described in the White Paper Justice for All.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We shall shortly be announcing membership of the new Correctional Services Board, which will include a number of independent non-executive members. These members will have a specific remit to oversee work on reviewing effectiveness and value for money in the delivery of correctional services so as to reduce re-offending and on how we improve our ability to manage the prison population.

HMP Brixton

Lord Brooks of Tremorfa: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will indicate the outcome of the market testing of the management of HMP Brixton.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The market test for the management of Brixton did not attract bids from the private sector, partly because of its poor physical condition and location. The in-house bid, while being impressive, was not affordable. Therefore, instead of operating under a service level agreement, the prison will continue to be run under existing management arrangements. However, a performance baseline will be set with challenging improvement targets and progress will be closely monitored.

Asylum Seekers

Lord Hughes of Woodside: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What arrangements exist for asylum seekers to submit material in support of their claim.

Lord Filkin: Under existing procedures, an applicant who is not issued with a statement of evidence form (SEF) to complete prior to their asylum interview is allowed five days after their substantive asylum interview to make further representations before a decision is taken on their asylum claim.
	Those asylum applicants issued with an SEF prior to any substantive interview do not benefit from this arrangement. This is because applicants issued with an SEF form are given 10 working days to submit the completed form to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. We think this gives applicants a reasonable period to set out their claim and time to seek legal representation if they wish for the submission of further supporting evidence.
	We have decided that asylum applicants who go through the induction centre process will no longer benefit from the five day period to make further representations. The induction centre process is designed to familiarise an asylum applicant with the asylum procedures, providing the asylum seeker with detailed briefings on different aspects of the asylum process and to explain to applicants what their obligations are. All asylum applicants who go through the induction centre process are told that all information relevant to their claim must be available by the time they are substantively interviewed because decisions on claims will be made shortly after the interview. The interview itself will be scheduled to take place two weeks after the applicant has gone through the induction process. We consider that this two-week period offers the applicant sufficient time to prepare for the interview and gather any supporting information he considers necessary.
	This change is in keeping with our commitment to deliver fast asylum decisions, while at the same time ensuring that asylum seekers have a proper opportunity to establish their claims.
	These arrangements do not apply to Oakington or any detained cases.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate Complaints Audit Committee

Lord Hughes of Woodside: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will indicate the changes in the membership of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's independent Complaints Audit Committee.

Lord Filkin: Ms Catherine Tuitt has been appointed as a new member of the Complaints Audit Committee to replace Mercy Jeyasingham, whose three-year term of tenure ends in July 2002. Ms Tuitt has worked in a variety of positions, both in the private and public sector, ranging from legal consultancy and public affairs, to chairing council committees. A local elected councillor until recently, Ms Tuitt has considerable experience in facilitating service provision. She is presently an advocate for a voluntary community organisation providing support and advice to refugees and children of refugees.

Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre

Lord Jones: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have for the future of the Campsfield House Immigration removal centre.

Lord Filkin: On 7 February, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced that he had decided that the Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre would close by spring 2003. However, following the incident at the Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre in February and the consequent temporary reduction in removal centre capacity, we have decided to postpone the closure of Campsfield House until September 2004. This is in order to maintain removal centre capacity and thus support our commitment to increase the rate of removal of failed asylum seekers.

Entry Clearance: Over-age Applicants and DNA Testing

Lord Varley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many successful applications have been made since 1999 under the concession for over–age applications for entry clearance, following DNA testing.

Lord Filkin: , On 1 January 1991 a concession was introduced concerning over-age applicants for entry clearance, following DNA testing. It enabled those dependent children who had previously been refused entry to join their parents in the United Kingdom owing to doubts about their being related as claimed to re-apply if a DNA test now confirmed the relationship. Among other requirements, they had also still to be dependent upon their parents and unmarried. By July 1991, some 550 cases relating to the concession had been considered, of which 115 were conceded. However, in recent years use of the concession has been nil. Each year between five and 10 people who have already re-applied once and been refused, have applied again, but no applications have been granted under the concession.
	Last year, some members made representations to the Home Office, urging that the concession be widened so as to allow people who had been refused as minors to re-apply. The Government had considerable sympathy with their views and with the people yet more who were wrongly refused before the introduction of DNA tests made such decisions much more reliable. However, this situation arose owing to technological advances and we have already attempted, by way of the present concession, to correct any previous injustices resulting from decisions which were taken in good faith on the available evidence at the time. It is now no longer possible to identify those people who may have been wrongly refused due to doubts about their relationship to a United Kingdom sponsor, as many records of earlier decisions have been destroyed.
	Given that it is not possible to widen the concession, and given that the concession is not being used and has not been used for some time, we have decided that the concession should end. After 24 August 2002 no new applications under the concession will be considered. There remains within the Immigration Rules provision for dependent relatives who find themselves in distressed circumstances to apply to join a sponsor in the United Kingdom. Any future applications will instead be considered under the existing Immigration Rules governing dependent relatives.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill

Earl Russell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What sum has been budgeted for litigation arising from the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill.

Lord Filkin: Financial implications of provisions in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill were set out in the Financial effects of the Bill in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, as introduced in to the house of Commons. There is no specific budget for litigation; any costs will be funded from within the Home Office budget.

Helsinki Conference, 16 and 17 September

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Filkin on 9 July (WA 77), whether they will publish the draft final declaration of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for migration affairs, to be held in Helsinki on 16 and 17 September, so that Parliament is informed in advance of the conference of the likely parameters of the disclosure.

Lord Filkin: I do not think it would be appropriate to publish the draft final declaration before it has been discussed by participating ministers.
	The conference will be considering three main themes. These are: challenges for integration policy, including managing diversity in a democratic society; challenges in migration management policies, including smuggling and trafficking; and policy planning for the future, including the role of migration in economic and social development and its impact on the demographic situation in receiving and sending countries.
	The final communique will reflect the views of working groups on these topics and key conclusions will be presented at the end of the conference.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002, Schedule 7

Lord Skelmersdale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultations were held between the Home Office, Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Transport before Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002 was laid before Parliament on 3 July; and
	What consultations were held between them and representatives of the ports and airlines industries regarding the proposed Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002 between Monday 15 April and Monday 1 July; and
	Why no regulatory impact assessment was produced in connection with Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (Information) Order 2002; laid before Parliament on 3 July.

Lord Filkin: Copies of the consultation letter of 1 March were sent to the then Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) and the Department for Trade and Industry (DTI). Officials from the DTLR attended a number of the meetings which the Home Office arranged with representatives of the enforcement agencies and the air and maritime carriers.
	Between 15 April and 1 July 2002 Home Office officials met representatives of the air and maritime industries on 19 April (maritime freight carriers), 14 May (air freight carriers), 28 May (air freight forwarders), 17 June (maritime freight forwarders) and 25 June (maritime containers). In addition officials made a number of visits to ports and individual companies on 15 May (Dover East); 22 May (FedEx); 30 May (Holyhead); 7 June (DHL); 13 June (British International Freight Association) and 26 June (Excel).
	On 11 July, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, my honourable friend the Minister of State (Ms Hughes) and I met representatives of the air and maritime carriers.
	A regulatory impact assessment was produced and sent to the House on 12 July 2002. The document will be amended to reflect the outcome of the ongoing consultation on the implementation of the legislation.

Refugees: Entry through the Republic of Ireland

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What checks are in place to monitor the movement of refugees or asylum seekers from the European Union via the Republic of Ireland across the land frontier into the United Kingdom.

Lord Filkin: The United Kingdom Immigration Service does not operate a border control on the land frontier between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom as this falls within the arrangements set out for the common travel area. The objective of the common travel area is that all the territories should be treated as a single unit for the purpose of travel within the area. A person's arrival in the United Kingdom from within the common travel area is not, therefore, subject to control except under very specific circumstances as outlined in the Immigration Act 1971 and the Control of Entry through the Republic of Ireland Order 1972 which defines those persons who may not enter the United Kingdom from the Republic of Ireland without leave from an immigration officer.
	People entering Ireland from outside the common travel area, including European Union states other than the United Kingdom, would arrive by sea or air into ports of entry controlled by the Irish authorities. We are confident that the Irish authorities control their borders effectively in accordance with their legislation and the United Kingdom Immigration Service liaises closely with its Irish counterparts on matters of mutual operational interest.
	Any asylum seeker who has sought asylum in another member state of the European Union who subsequently travels to the United Kingdom is liable for return to that country under the terms of the Dublin Convention. This includes people who have sought asylum in the Republic of Ireland.

British Passports

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether British citizens are entitled to receive and retain British passports except in the following cases:
	(a) where British citizenship has been acquired by fraudulent conduct, false information or concealment of any relevant fact attributable to the applicant; or
	(b) voluntary service in a foreign military force; or
	(c) conduct seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or a British Overseas Territory; or
	(d) where they have no claim to British nationality; or
	(e) in relation to minors whose journey is known to be contrary to a court order; or
	(f) where a warrant for the arrest has been issued in the United Kingdom for the individual concerned; or
	(g) the issuing of a passport would be contrary to the public interest; and, if not, what are the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the Government to exercise their powers to refuse to provide or withdraw a passport.

Lord Filkin: British passports are issued to British nationals in the United Kingdom at the discretion of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and, at overseas posts, at the discretion of my friend the Foreign Secretary, both exercising the Royal Prerogative. The essential requirements are that the intended holder has British nationality and is the person described by the personal details to be entered in the passport. Passports are therefore not issued to persons who are not British nationals and/or whose identity cannot be authenticated.
	Passport facilities are refused or can be withdrawn in certain other well defined categories, which have been reported to Parliament from time to time. These are:
	(i) a minor whose journey is know to be contrary to a court order, to the wishes of a parent or other person or authority in whose favour a residence order has been made or awarded custody or care and control, or to the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, as amended by Section 42 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, or Section 56 of the Adoption Act 1976, as amended by the Children Act 1989.
	(ii) a person for whose arrest a warrant has been issued in the United Kingdom or who is wanted by the police on suspicion of a serious crime;
	(iii) in very rare cases, a person whose past or proposed activities are so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to public interest;
	(iv) a person repatriated at public expense, until the debt has been repaid.
	The refusal or withdrawal of passport facilities in these circumstances is rare and cases are considered on their individual merits. On the basis of the limited case law it is clear that such action is open to scrutiny by the courts.
	The possibility of introducing a statutory right to passports has been debated in Parliament in the past but successive governments have taken the view that the current system has worked well and change is not required.

Asylum Seekers

Lord Desai: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to amend the employment concession for asylum seekers.

Lord Filkin: The asylum system is working increasingly quickly, through reforms and increased resources. Measures in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill will continue this process. This means that the employment concession, whereby asylum seekers could apply for permission to work if their application remained outstanding for longer than six months without a decision being made, is becoming increasingly irrelevant. The vast majority—around 80 per cent—of asylum seekers receive a decision within six months, and work is continuing to improve that further. An increasingly small number of people, therefore, are entitled to apply for the concession. It is also the case that the great majority of new asylum applicants will have their cases decided within two months and the concession, which dates from a time when lengthy delays were widespread in the asylum system, is therefore no longer appropriate.
	We are determined to make it clear that there is a distinct separation between asylum processes and labour migration channels. It is essential that we have a robust asylum process that works effectively and swiftly in the interests of refugees and also is not open to abuse by those who would seek to come here to work. But that does not mean we are ''Fortress Britain''. The Government are putting in place an effective managed migration programme and continue to create a number of work routes to allow more people to come and work here legally in ways which boost our economy. For example, the Government have overhauled the work permits system and the number of work permits issued has doubled over the past two years—in 2001 we issued work permits to nearly 140,000 people. Other entry routes for people who want to work in the United Kingdom include the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme, the Working Holidaymakers Scheme (under which nearly 40,000 Commonwealth young people a year come to the United Kingdom for a working holiday) and the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (which brings in nearly 20,000 seasonal workers a year). In addition, the Government are currently consulting on schemes to bring in more temporary workers in industries with recruitment difficulties.
	Those who are granted refugee status can work immediately, and we welcome the enormous contribution that the skills and knowledge of refugees can make to our society and to our economy. However, our asylum system exists to help those fleeing persecution—those who want to come here to work must do so through the various economic routes available rather than abuse the asylum system.
	We have therefore decided, with immediate effect, that the concession should be abolished. Asylum seekers who already have permission to work will retain that right until such time as a final decision is made on their claim. Asylum seekers who, prior to this announcement, had sought permission to work but have not had a response will have their requests considered in line with our previous policy. We will retain a discretion to grant permission to work for asylum seekers in exceptional cases.
	It is absolutely vital, of course, that all asylum seekers use their time constructively while their case is considered. Therefore, we have also decided to review our current rules governing the voluntary work which asylum seekers can undertake in order to ensure that there are no unnecessary barriers to participation.
	To demonstrate our ongoing commitment to purposeful activity for asylum seekers, we have also awarded over £900,000 to 135 projects across the United Kingdom for summer programmes to give them the opportunity to get involved in voluntary activities in the community or partake in sports orientated and educational events.

Afghanistan: Prisoners of War

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the content of the most recent reports they have received from the International Committee of the Red Cross concerning the conditions of prisoners of war now held in Afghanistan and the propects of their early release or trial, if charged with crimes.

Baroness Amos: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) makes regular visits to detainees in Afghanistan in accordance with international humanitarian law.
	We have not received any reports from the ICRC on the conditions of prisoners of war held in Afghanistan.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many asylum seekers or refugees the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has resettled successfully during each of the last 10 years.

Baroness Amos: According to UNHCR figures, between 1992 and 2001 the total number of refugees who were resettled is as follows:
	Year Number of refugees resettled
	1992 163,680
	1993 150,086
	1994 149,565
	1995 132,537
	1996 103,877
	1997 93,334
	1998 101,517
	1999 107,768
	2000 99,864
	2001 92,094
	The number of refugees resettled with assistance from UNHCR between 1997 (the earliest comparable data available) and 2001 is as follows:
	1997 23,145
	1998 21,192
	1999 28,747
	2000 39,516
	2001 29,742

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How much they have contributed to the running costs of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees during each of the last 10 years; and whether their contribution was the full amount of their quota in each year.

Baroness Amos: According to UNHCR, the UK Government's contributions since 1992 are as follows:
	Year Total UK Government contribution
	1992 38,206,319
	1993 37,806,011
	1994 45,285,269
	1995 32,181,400
	1996 34,413,859
	1997 11,524,149
	1998 17,266,578
	1999 15,678,185
	2000 20,321,672
	2001 25,009,711
	All figures are in pounds sterling.
	Note: The bulk of UNHCR funding is from voluntary contributions; there is no ''UK quota''.

Mr Nader Seyyedi Estahbanati

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will ask the Commonwealth Secretary-General to take up with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the government of Australia the case of Mr Nader Seyyedi Estahbanati, who escaped from Iran but was refoule to Iran on 31 May.

Baroness Amos: We are not familiar with the case, but if the noble Lord writes to me on the subject, the matter will be investigated further.

Iran: Trafficking of People

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they agree with the recent report from the United States State Department that Iran is taking insufficient steps to counter trafficking in human beings.

Baroness Amos: The UK deplores the trafficking of people, wherever it occurs. We are actively engaged, in co-operation with partners, to combat the trade and the criminal organisations that profit from it. We support the rehabilitation of victims and, if appropriate, their return to their countries of origin. UK authorities have insufficient independent evidence to confirm or challenge the American assessment of the cases referred to in the State Department's report. But we and our EU partners take every appropriate opportunity to press the Iranian authorities over our concerns about human rights issues in Iran.

NEPAD and Libya

Lord Shutt of Greetland: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What position they take on the possibility of Libya having a seat on the steering committee for the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD).

Baroness Amos: At the African Union summit in Durban it was decided to expand the NEPAD Implementation Committee from 15 to 20 members. Reports that Libya will be one of the new members have not been confirmed. While Libya has been a vocal critic of NEPAD, the programme is an African-led initiative and it is for the Africans to decide on the membership of its structures. We support all African efforts to put the NEPAD commitments into practice.

Passports Issued by Dublin Embassy

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many passports they have issued from their Dublin Embassy to applicants with addresses in the Republic of Ireland in every six–month period since 1996.

Baroness Amos: A six–monthly record of statistics for 1996 to 1999 is not available electronically and the specific information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The figures for the financial years for the period in question are as follows:
	1996–97 4,701
	1997–98 5,199
	1998–99 5,649
	April 1999–Dec 1999 4,793
	Since the introduction of digitally produced passports, statistics can be broken down into six–month periods. Details are as follows:
	01/01/2000 to 30/06/2000 4,236
	01/07/2000 to 31/12/2000 3,038
	01/01/2001 to 30/06/2001 4,558
	30/06/2001 to 31/12/2001 3,551
	01/01/2002 to 30/06/2002 5,132

Passports Issued by Dublin Embassy

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many applications for passports from people with addresses in the Republic of Ireland have been turned down by the United Kingdom's Dublin Embassy from 1 January to 30 June 2002; and what were the reasons they were turned down.

Baroness Amos: Twenty passport applications were refused by our embassy in Dublin between 1 January and 30 June 2002.
	None of the applicants had any claim to British nationality.

Hong Kong

Lord Grenfell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the next report to Parliament on Hong Kong and the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Baroness Amos: The report in this series, covering the period January–June 2002, was published on 23 July and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House. A copy of the report is also available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk). The report includes a foreword by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I commend the report to the House.

Westminster Foundation for Democracy Annual Report

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When the annual report of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will be available.

Baroness Amos: Copies of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy's annual report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The foundation has continued its crucial work in building and developing democracy overseas during the last 12 months. The foundation received a grant in aid of £4.156 million from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and further £390,056 of funds earmarked for specific purposes. In addition, it received funds from the European Union, the United Nations Development Programme and the Department for International Development.
	Most of the foundation's activities were in its priority areas of Central and Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and anglophone Africa. The foundation initiated an important technical assistance programme in Sierra Leone, promoting the development of political parties and the principles of peaceful and responsible conduct in political life. The significant contribution that the foundation has made to the development of democracy in the Balkans was strongly endorsed by an independent evaluation of its Bosnia programme.

British Council: Loan of Works of Art

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many indemnity undertakings were given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in respect of loss or damage to works of art loaned to the British Council for exhibitions overases for the 12-month period ended March 2002; and what was the value of contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings which remained outstanding at that date.

Baroness Amos: The British Council, although not a government department, receives a substantial grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The council regularly organises or sponsors exhibitions overseas of works of art loaned from national galleries and private collections in the United Kingdom. It provides certain assurances or guarantees in respect of loss or damage while these works are on loan.
	In the 12-month period ended 31 March 2002 the British Council provided such assurances to four national lenders and undertakings to 193 private lenders. The value of the contingent liabilities that remained outstanding as at 31 March 2002 in respect of private lenders was £4,358,822. No contingent liabilities remained outstanding at this date in respect of national lenders.

Inverness and Stirling

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the two newly created Scottish cities of Inverness and Stirling will be granted a Lord Provost.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is no necessary connection between the grant of the title of city and the grant of the title of Lord Provost. Both city status and Lord Provostships are conferred under the Royal Prerogative. Following the recent Golden Jubilee honours, Her Majesty has not expressed any wish to make further grants of such honours.

President of Ireland: Visits to UK

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what occasions Mary McAleese, the President of the Republic of Ireland, has visited the United Kingdom; what was the purpose of each visit; and into which category of visit each fits.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Since her inauguration in 1997, President McAleese has visited the United Kingdom on 74 occasions. Forty-nine of these visits have been categorised as working or working/private visits. The remaining visits have been categorised as private visits. We understand that the President of Ireland has also carried out a number of other private visits, on which Her Majesty's Government do not keep records.
	These visits have taken place at President McAleese's own instigation, by invitation of a third party or for personal reasons. During these visits, engagements have included visiting a number of schools and colleges in Northern Ireland; receiving an honorary degree from the University of Nottingham; attending the opening of the Long Tower Centre in Londonderry; opening the Research Institute for Irish/Scottish Studies in Aberdeen; a private lunch with HM The Queen; and Henley Royal Regatta.

Gibraltar

Lord Fearn: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which department will draft the details of the Gibraltar referendum; and whether these details will be seen by Members of the House of Lords prior to issue.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Government will continue to keep Parliament informed. No decisions have been made on the timing or modalities of any referendum, other than because it could trigger primary legislation in the UK. HMG will expect to oversee the organisation and timing of any such referendum in consultation with the Government of Gibraltar.

Gibraltar

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is still their policy that no change should be made to the status of Gibraltar without the consent of its people.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I refer the noble Lord to the Answer I gave to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, in the House on 18 July (Official Report, column 1394).

Gibraltar

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the event of a referendum being held in Gibraltar to determine its future status, who will set the question; and who will run the election process.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I refer the nobel Lord to the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Fearn, today (HL5324).

US Steel Import Restrictions

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made in their representations to the United States Government concerning the imposition of restrictions on the importation into the United States of steel from the United Kingdom announced earlier this year.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We have continued to make clear to the US that we consider their action to be in breach of their WTO obligations. A WTO dispute panel has now been established to consider the complaints of the EU and six other countries.
	We continue actively to support UK companies in their efforts to secure product exclusions from the US measures and we continue to press the US Administration at the highest levels on this.
	We have had some successes so far, but we want and expect more products to be excluded before the deadline for exclusions (now extended to 31 August) expires.

US Steel Import Restrictions

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many jobs will be lost in the United Kingdom as a result of the importation restrictions on United Kingdom steel imposed by the United States Government, if they are not modified.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: It is not possible to say precisely how many jobs will be affected by the US import restrictions. The volume of UK exports directly affected by restrictions represents less than 2 per cent of the UK steel output. However, some smaller UK companies are more reliant on the US market and will therefore be more significantly affected by decisions on product exclusions. The indirect effects on UK steel producers are potentially more important but more uncertain. In particular, those arising from the possible deflection of exports from other EU member states, which would otherwise have been destined for the US market, are difficult to calculate.

Sudan

The Earl of Sandwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have approved, or intend to approve, an export licence for British radar and computer equipment for the Sudanese Civil Aviation Authority; and how they will ensure that this equipment will be confined to non-military purposes.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation does not normally comment on export licence applications, which are commercially confidential and exempt from disclosure under Part II, Exemption 13 and 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Details of all relevant export licences issued and refused since 2 May 1997 are published by destination in the Government's Annual Reports on Strategic Export Controls, copies of which are placed in the Libraries of the House. The 2001 annual report will be published soon.
	All relevant export licence applications for Sudan are rigorously assessed on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, the EU arms embargo and the military end use control in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time and taking account of other relevant factors. I refer the noble Lord to the reply from my honourable friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) to my honourable friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Andy King) in another place on 28 January 1998, Offical Report, col 273-74.

Mineworkers Respiratory Claims

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the total expenditure on legal and administrative activity in regard to the Mineworkers Emphysema and Bronchitis Scheme since 1993.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The total costs paid to miners' solicitors for respiratory disease for the period 1 January 1998 to 14 July 2002 is £66 million.
	For the period April 1999 to March 2002 the department spent £74.3 million externally in respect of administrative expenditure on all coal health claims. The areas of expenditure covered include: record collection and medical assessments; claims handling; the department's own legal costs and professional advice.
	For the period January 1999 to March 2002 the department spent £2.6 million internally in respect of administrative expenditure on all coal health claims. A single figure for the Mineworkers Emphysema and Bronchitis Scheme is not readily available.

Mineworkers Respiratory Claims

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In respect of mineworkers' respiratory claims, whether the contract between the Department of Trade and Industry and Healthcall, which expires on 1 November 2002 (subject to 12 months' extension) was formally re-tendered; and, if not, why not.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In February 2002, the department issued an expression of interest notice about the respiratory disease medical assessment contract. The invitation to tender was sent out to interested parties in April 2002. Following this re-tendering process, my honourable friend the Minister for Energy and Construction announced that on 2 July that SchlumbergerSema had been awarded the contract.
	SchlumbergerSema will take over the contract from Healthcall on 1 November 2002.

Mineworkers Respiratory Claims

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why the Department of Trade and Industry has awarded a contract to SchlumbergerSema for the provision of medical services in connection with mineworkers' respiratory claims when that company is already heavily involved with work under an earlier contract with the department for mineworkers' Vibration White Finger (VWF) claims.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The contract for medical assessments in connection with miners' respiratory claims was put out to competitive tender and SchlumbergerSema put in the best bid.
	SchlumbergerSema's current work in relation to its contract with the department for mineworkers' vibration white finger has no bearing upon its contract for respiratory claims. The VWF contract uses an entirely different team of doctors, technicians and managers.

Mining Industry Pension Schemes

Lord Hardy of Wath: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What has been the total cost of their responsibilities as guarantor of the mining industry pension scheme funds since 1991.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Government have had guarantor responsibilities for the two British Coal pension schemes since the current guarantee arrangements were introduced in 1994. The establishment of the investment reserve and guarantors' sub-funds within the schemes at that time was in effect a cash injection of money the Government were otherwise entitled to withdraw. The Government continue to contribute to the schemes by leaving major sums, currently valued at around £4 billion, within those sub-funds.
	The Government are committed under the guarantee to protect the payment of pensions valued at around £16 billion.

Renewable Energy

Lord Campbell of Croy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What percentage of energy generated within the United Kingdom they aim to be produced from renewable sources by the end of 2002.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The Renewables Obligation, introduced on 1 April this year, places an obligation on electricity suppliers to supply a specified proportion of their electricity from renewable energy. The levels of obligation will ramp up every year to reach the target of 10 per cent by 2010. This target and the levels of obligation are expressed as percentages of total electricity supplied rather than percentages of all energy generated. The first obligation period runs from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003. The level of obligation for this first period is set at 3 per cent.

Coal Claims Website

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the amount of expenditure incurred in setting-up the coal claims website; and what are the failures in its function which have necessitated a full operational review.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The initial set-up costs for the coal claims website were £700,000.
	The department continues to work with solicitors and its contractors in developing the site and expanding its use. The department has no plans to carry out any full operational review at present.

British Coal Health Liabilities

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will state, both in relation to mineworkers' Vibration White Finger (VWF) and respiratory claims, the precise sums paid by way of costs to Nabarro Nathanson, the solicitors representing the Department of Trade and Industry, in respect of generic work undertaken since the High Court trials.[HL5333]

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Since January 1998, when the department took over British Coal health liabilities, it has paid almost £6.5 million to Nabarro Nathanson by way of costs.

British Coal Health Liabilities

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is still the case that in respect of Vibration White Finger (VWF) and respiratory claims, they will, in cases of doubt, take the miner's word in respect of work histories or duties; whether any such decisions have had a positive effect on the processing of claims; if not, why not; and whether any such decisions have been ignored by AON IRISC.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: On respiratory disease claims, where British Coal records clearly state a claimant worked in a particular pit or job but the claimant contends that they worked elsewhere, under the claims handling agreement there is a presumption that the records are correct. If solicitors and their clients can produce further evidence or make a strong case that calls into question the validity of the existing records then that will be taken into account. Where no records exist the department takes the claimant's word.
	On VWF claims, similarly British Coal records are used first to confirm the claimant's occupation. If this is disputed, or records cannot ultimately be found, then there is a process for claimants to provide additional evidence to support their contention.

Productivity

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether United Kingdom productivity is falling; and, if so, why.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Whole economy productivity, on a per-hour worked basis, was 0.5 per cent higher in quarter one 2002 than in the same quarter last year. This compares with the latest peak in productivity growth of 3.5 per cent in 2000 quarter one.
	Productivity growth is influenced by a wide range of factors and last year's marked slowdown in the world economy clearly dampened output and productivity gains, especially in externally exposed industries and sectors.
	GDP is forecast to increase by 2 to 2.5 per cent in 2002, gathering pace during this year as the world economic recovery becomes more broadly based. There are already encouraging signs that productivity growth is beginning to pick up following last year's world downturn. For example, manufacturing productivity in the three months to May was 1.3 per cent higher than in the previous three months, its fastest growth since January 2001.

Tobacco Smuggling

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the Companies Investigation branch investigating the alleged role of British American Tobacco in tobacco smuggling has so far taken advice or evidence regarding BAT's conduct from either the European Union anti-fraud office (OLAF) or the legal team that has been conducting a racketeering action against BAT and other tobacco companies on behalf of the State Governors of Columbia; and if not whether they plan to do so.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The investigation into allegations that British American Tobacco was implicated in smuggling are continuing. Confidential investigation is being conducted under Section 447 of the Companies Act 1985. The department does not comment on any aspects of such inquiries.

Trade in Food

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the total (excluding drink) of all food imports, all food exports and the deficit in the trade in food in the 10 years 1992–2001.

Lord Whitty: The following table shows the value and balance of UK trade in food between 1992–2001.
	
		(£ million) 
		
			 Year Exports Imports Balance of Trade 
			 1992 4,627 10,672 -6,045 
			 1993 5,091 10,807 -5,715 
			 1994 5,642 11,662 -6,020 
			 1995 6,439 12,917 -6,478 
			 1996 6,241 13,929 -7,689 
			 1997 5,983 13,341 -7,358 
			 1998 5,692 13,130 -7,437 
			 1999 5,315 13,094 -7,780 
			 2000 5,148 12,883 -7,736 
			 2001 4,776 13,785 -9,009 
			  
			 Grand Total 54,953 126,220 -71,267 
		
	
	Crown Copyright
	Source: HM Customs and Excise
	Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities & Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, Defra.

Trade in Food

Lord Carter: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the total (excluding drink) of all temperate food imports, all temperate food exports and the trade deficit or surplus in temperate food in the 10 years 1992-2001.

Lord Whitty: The following table shows the value and balance of UK trade in indigenous food between 1992-2001.
	
		
			 (£ million) 
			 Year Exports Imports Balance of Trade 
			 1992 3,725 6,326 –2,602 
			 1993 4,023 6,264 –2,240 
			 1994 4,446 6,657 –2,210 
			 1995 5,174 7,480 –2,307 
			 1996 4,894 8,049 –3,156 
			 1997 4,624 7,753 –3,128 
			 1998 4,330 7,972 –3,642 
			 1999 4,057 8,171 –4,114 
			 2000 3,951 8,189 –4,238 
			 2001 3,570 8,908 –5,338 
			  
			 Grand Total 42,794 75,769 –32,975 
		
	
	Copyright
	Source: HM Customs and Excise
	Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities & Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, Defra.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner

Baroness David: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the plans for the offices of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The current Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, Sir Michael Buckley, plans to retire later this year.
	Her Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment of Ann Abraham as Sir Michael's successor as Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England. Ann Abraham, who is currently the Legal Services Ombudsman, will take up appointment later this year.
	I am grateful to Sir Michael for the dedication and commitment he has shown over the past five and a half years, and for the valuable contribution he has made to public life.

Information Commissioner

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who the new Information Commissioner will be.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Prime Minister has announced that the Queen has approved the appointment of Mr Richard Thomas as the new Information Commissioner, to succeed Mrs Elizabeth France CBE later this year. Mr Thomas is currently Director of Public Policy at the law firm Clifford Chance. He is expected to take up his duties as commissioner on 30 November.

Ministerial Overseas Visits

Baroness Lockwood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list (a) government expenditure on ministerial overseas visits for the financial years 1996-97 to 2001-02 and (b) all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500 between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002, including the cost, destination and purpose of each visit.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Expenditure on ministerial overseas visits for the period requested is estimated as follows:
	
		
			 Year £ million 
			 1996-97 7.9 
			 2 May 1997 to 31 March1998 6.4 
			 1998-99 4.9 
			 1999-2000 4.6 
			 2000-01 4.7 
			 2001-02 5.6 
		
	
	The figure for 2001-02 reflects payments made so far for travel undertaken in this period; a few bills have yet to be submitted to departments for payment.
	A list of all visits overseas undertaken by cabinet ministers costing £500 or more during the period 1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002 has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The list provides details of the date, destination and purpose of all such visits and the cost of ministers' travel and accommodation where appropriate.

OSCE Parliamentary Assembly: UK Delegation

Lord Graham of Edmonton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What changes there are to the leadership of the United Kingdom Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Right honourable Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Davis) replaces the right honourable Member for Walsall, South (Mr George),who has been elected President of the Assembly, as leader of the delegation. The right honourable Member for Walsall, South (Mr George) remains a member of the delegation.

Special Advisers

Baroness Serota: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What the cost is of the pay bill for special advisers in 2001–02; what are the pay bands for 2002–03; and how many special advisers there are in each pay band, broken down by department.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The pay bands and pay ranges for special advisers for 2002–03 are as follows:
	Scheme Maximum: £128,125
	Pay Band 4: £76,876 to £92,250
	Pay Band 3 and Premium: £57,401 to £89,175
	Pay Band 2: £45,101 to £58,240
	Pay Band 1: £34,851 to £45,760
	Pay Band 0: Up to £34,850
	At 22 July 2002, the number of special advisers in each pay band by department is as follows:
	
		
			 Department 0 1 2 3 4 
			 No 10(1) – 6 6 11 2 
			 Office of the Deputy  Prime Minister(2) – – 2 1 – 
			 Chief Whip's Office – 1 2 – – 
			 Culture, Media and  Sport – – – 1 – 
			 Defence – – 1 – – 
			 Education and Skills – – 1 1 – 
			 Environment, Food  and Rural Affairs – 1 1 – – 
			 Foreign and  Commonwealth Office – – – 2 – 
			 Health – – – 2 – 
			 Home Office(3) – – 4 – – 
			 International  Development(4) – – – – – 
			 Leader of the House of  Lords(5) – 1 1 – – 
			 Lord Chancellor's  Department – – – – 1 
			 Northern Ireland  Office – – 2 – – 
			 President of the  Council – – 2 – – 
			 Scotland Office – 1 1 – – 
			 Trade and Industry(6) – 1 1 1 – 
			 HM Treasury(7 8) – 1 1 2 1 
			 Transport(9) – – 1 – – 
			 Wales Office – 1 – – – 
			 Work and Pensions(10) – – – – – 
			  
			 Total – 13 26 21 4 
		
	
	The cost of special advisers in 2001–02 is £5.1m.
	(1) Plus two special advisers who are paid beyond Pay Band 4 but still within the scheme.
	(2) Provision for three full-time posts but currently only 2.5 special advisers employed.
	(3) Includes one special adviser who is part-time.
	(4) One special adviser has been appointed but the job has not yet been evaluated.
	(5) Includes one part-time special adviser who provides advice to the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
	(6) Plus one adviser who is part-time and unpaid.
	(7) Includes the Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury.
	(8) Plus the five members of the Council of Economic Advisers who are employed on special adviser terms (one in Band 4, three in Band 3 and one in Band 1—one is part-time).
	(9) Plus one special adviser who has been appointed but the job has not yet been evaluated.
	(sup10) One special adviser has been appointed but the job has not yet been evaluated.

Legal and Regulatory Framework for Charities Review

Lord Graham of Edmonton: asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office:
	When the Strategy Unit Review of the legal and regulatory framework for charities and the not-for-profit sector will be published.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The Strategy Unit (formerly Performance and Innovation Unit) review of the legal and regulatory framework for charities and the not-for-profit sector will be published in September.

Central Office of Information Annual Report and Accounts

Baroness Lockwood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will publish the Central Office of Information's (COI) annual report and accounts 2001–02.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The COI annual report and accounts 2001–02 was today laid before Parliament, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

Emergencies Head Departments

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which departments will take the lead in the event of different kinds of emergency taking place in the United Kingdom.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Most emergencies are handled at a local level by the emergency services and by the appropriate local authority or authorities with no direct involvement by central government.
	Where central government do become involved because the incident is of such a scale or complexity to require central co–ordination or support, it is essential that we are clear in advance which department will be in the lead.
	The Civil Contingencies Committee has had an up-to-date list of pre-nominated leads produced in order to reflect the devolution settlement, the changes to the machinery of government made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister since the general election and incidents which were not covered in the earlier Dealing with Disaster guidance document.
	A paper explaining the respective roles of lead government departments and the Civil Contingencies Secretariat and a table summarising which departments will have the lead for different categories of emergency have been placed in the libraries of the House.
	The tables show the position that holds within the devolved administrations, and arrangements are being made to place the material in the Libraries of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
	Arrangements are also being made for this material to be made available to the local authority and emergency service associations and to be placed on the Internet at www.ukresilience.info, which will be updated whenever necessary and should be consulted for the latest information on pre-designated lead departments.

Castlereagh Police Complex Break-in

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who they consider carried out the raid on Castlreagh police complex on 17th March.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The break-in at the Castlereagh police complex is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. While it continues it would not be appropriate for the Government to speculate about the circumstances of the incident.

Northern Ireland: Police Resources and Crime

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider the fall of over 20 per cent in the number of police officers in Northern Ireland between 1998 and 2001 and the rise in the crime rate over the same period to be related.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Crime rates in the whole of the United Kingdom increased between 1998 and 2002. It is not possible to identify one factor alone being responsible for increase in crime rates in Northern Ireland. As acknowledged in the 2001–02 chief constable's report, the new electronic recording systems have resulted in a significant increase in recorded crime.
	While police numbers in Northern Ireland have reduced since 1998, the Government continue to be guided by the chief constable's assessment of policing requirements. The PSNI and Policing Board are working together to develop an overall human resource strategy which will help to ensure optimum use is made of the resources the PSNI has available. However, the Government accept the analysis of the chief constable, again from his annual report, that the need to devote resources to police public disorder situations places great pressure on the ability of PSNI to respond to other crime.

PSNI: Wearing of Poppies

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will take steps to ensure that members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland will not be required to remove Remembrance Poppies during visits to the United Kingdom by the President of the Republic of Ireland.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Policy on the wearing of poppies in the PSNI is a matter for the acting chief constable, who has no plans to amend the current instructions.

Justice ( Northern Ireland) Bill: Funding

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the estimated funding required to finance those matters in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill to be eventually devolved to the Northern Ireland Administration.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is not possible at this stage accurately to predict the funding required for those matters in the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill to be devolved to the Northern Ireland Administration. This precise sum will depend among other things on the timing of further devolution and in some instances on detailed discussions yet to be held with devolved departments.
	However, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government will make every effort to ensure that those functions devolved to the Northern Ireland Administration will be adequately resourced.

PSNI: Full–Time Reserves

Lord Kilclooney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many full–time reserve policemen serve in the Police Service of Northern Ireland; what assurance they have for their future employment; and what are the terms of severance if it arises.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: The number of full–time reserve police officers serving in the Police Service of Northern Ireland as at 3 July 2002 was 2,038.
	The Government remain committed to the objective of phasing out the full–time reserve in line with the Patten report and the implementation plan. The Policing Board has asked the PSNI, in the context of the service's overall human resources strategy, to prepare detailed proposals to be considered by the board. The Government will want to hear the Board's views, in conjunction with the Chief Constable's assessment, before final decisions are made and announced. The Government recognise and regret the effect of uncertainty on officers and their families. We hope that it will be possible to reach conclusions on this issue in the near future. In the meantime, contracts for reserve officers are being renewed within the current guidelines.
	Discussions over the severance terms that will be available to full–time reserve officers, once a firm decision has been taken to begin the phasing–out process, have not yet concluded. However, the Government have already given a commitment that the full–time reserve will be treated no less favourable than the generous terms currently on offer under the voluntary severance scheme. They will be given an appropriate period of notice and full opportunities for re–training/business opportunities in preparation for alternative employment.
	Lena

Questions for Written Answer

Lord Jopling: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Privy Seal on 22 July (WA30) and on 19 June (WA91-92), whether they will give an assurance that when the House of Lords meets after the Summer Recess on 7 October all Answers to Written Questions standing on the Order Paper when the House rises on 30 July will appear in the Official Report for Monday 7 October.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can assure the noble Lord that I am making every effort to ensure that, as far as possible, Questions for Written Answer standing on the Order Paper when the House rises next Tuesday will appear in the Official Report for Monday 7 October. I have discussed the importance of this with ministerial colleagues and my office has explained to all departments the detailed procedures for answering questions during the Recess. My office will be monitoring progress.

Health and Safety Commission

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make an announcement on the review of the location in government of the Health and Safety Commission.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Following the establishment of the department for Transport as a department focused solely on transport issues, the Prime Minister has decided that the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive will transfer to the Department for Work and Pensions. The Health and Safety Sponsorship Division, currently located within the Department for Transport, will also transfer to the Department for Work and Pensions. These changes will take effect from 24 July 2002.

Procedure Committee Minutes

Lord Desai: asked the Leader of the House:
	Following the exchanges on the Floor of the House on 24 July (HL Deb cols 489 and 507) whether it is the case that the minutes of meetings of the Procedure Committee are placed in the Library of the House.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry that the advice I gave to the House on 24 July was incorrect. On further investigation, I now understand that has not been the usual practice to place the minutes of the Procedure Committee in the Library of the House. The particular set of minutes which were referred to on 24 July are expected to be available in the next few days, and I shall arrange for them to be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.
	The Clerk of the Parliaments has agreed that the minutes of the Procedure Committee will be placed in the Library from now on.